I vaguely recall picking up this ckl 64 M-42 some 40 years ago from a kid who said he found it in his grandmother's garage.Names/ranks of GIs are lightly inscribed on the liner.KH says it's a good one.So,there you have it.
Steve
My famous champagne SS helmet
I vaguely recall picking up this ckl 64 M-42 some 40 years ago from a kid who said he found it in his grandmother's garage.Names/ranks of GIs are lightly inscribed on the liner.KH says it's a good one.So,there you have it.
Steve
If that is a champagne decal, I hate to say these have just recently been demonstrated to be fakes by DougB. They are a convincingly performed spray paint application based on his information, not a decal in those tested. Sorry. They've fooled a lot of people over the years.
Others will probably be able to tell you more about the evidence, and some still believe there were original champagne decals. For me they're controversial enough to avoid, and personally I find Doug's information convincing. Kelly Hicks may still advocate for them, but everyone also makes mistakes with whatever information is available to them at the time. But, as far as I am aware of, only Doug has destroyed a champagne decal in order to test what it is made of. In his findings, the decal came off in a paint powder instead of chips when scraped. A tape test did not result in pulling the decal off as is often the case with real decals (please do not go and try either of those right now in a panic if you feel compelled to "just see" as it would pain me to hear you damaged a mislabeled good decal by mistake). Under magnification, faint black over spray of the paint on the runes and edging can be seen.
I'm far from an expert on these, and more of an observer. So, if you want to learn more about Doug's findings so you can make your own asessment, I recommend you join up over at German Helmet Walhalla forum, and look over this post:
http://www.ghw2.com/topic/49701-mythbusting-the-champagne-decal
There have also been some discussion on these here, which you can find via a search. I expect the controversy will go on among gentlemen whom I hold in high esteem, but for my two cents it's difficult to ignore Doug's evidence.
I agree with You, the Doug thread about the Champagne decal is very complete and seen in a scientific point of view.by avenger
what is the lotnr ? It is indeed a champagne runic shield in the ever observed pristine condition.
4767
Going by Doug B's studies, this looks to have all the tell tail signs he presented for us... "Fuzzy" backside ruins on the left side and top of ruins indicating stencil wasn't all the way down - IE: no "clean line" on the runic and the typical "tool markings" as he called them in the same general spot as the others he presented in his posts... To me - this decal shows all the same signs as Doug laid out for us to decipher this said champagne decal....
Could I just ask, were these being faked as long as 40 years ago.
Third Reich stuff was being faked during the war I've been told. There were collectors in Germany and abroad before things had ran their course, and it was not illegal for some buyers to purchase medals and awards. Following the war, troops were looking for their trophies to bring home and some companies continued to produce awards to sell to these GI's. There was a group of soldiers in the Pacific that were faking Japanese flags to sell to other troops as real. So, the idea that old items shouldn't be fake, simply doesn't pan out really.
On these decals/helmets, I will defer to others for info on how long they've been around. But, it's my understanding that the champagne decal has been out there for quite a while.
Seems alot to accept,though, to say that 40 years or more ago people were going through the incredibly hard process of Painting these "decals" on and in such perfection that they fooled even the big time helmet experts for decades. 40 years ago, wouldn't your garden variety faker simply have stuck a decal in place and roughed it up abit? Who would have gone to the trouble and why, when a fake decal would work just as well and so much easier? Old time collectors have seen these in the early 60's-who the hell was Doing these then? Some bored micro painting artist? Not many people then cared squat about "old Nazi stuff"? I'm not leaning one way or the other with these pieces so far-I don't think that we've heard the whole story yet on the champagnes.....
William
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
I hear what you're saying William, and I agree there's got to be more to the story. But likewise though, is it easier to imagine in the Third Reich they were doing the same skilled painting process when decals were easily attainable through their usual channels? They had even less incentive than the faker to do so since this would slow production and increase costs. Certainly they weren't painting these so well in the field either, they had more pressing matters to attend to. If the champagne decal is a paint application, post war forgery seems (to me) to be the most reasonable conclusion with our current info.
Personally, I find this level of fakery to be infuriating considering how much money it would mean people have been taken for. So, if the pendulum swings back towards originals, or that there is more than one type of champagne where some are original, I would be happy for people to hear that. But, given Doug's study, it's hard to imagine it going that way. I hope I'm wrong.
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks